[xupybd]

I understand why people could get offended about this. But as I understand it most who oppose this have a religious reason to do so. Now religion is as deeply person and important to a person as is the right to marry. So where do we draw the line on what we allow others to think, believe or support?

As a for instance my Aunty is vegan and is offended that I or any one else would ever eat meat. And I know eating meat is much less of an issue, but I support her right to oppose the eating of meat. She has would vote against my ability to eat meat. But my response would not be to attack her as a person but simply vote in the opposite direction.

On the other end I can see why a Jewish person living in Nazi Germany would have attached Hitler and the Nazi party at any chance they got.

But is there a middle ground?

[smirksirlot]

Just because your religion says so doesn't mean I have to follow it. I'm not trying to make you change your religion - you can live the way you want - but that is not the way I want.

The appropriate middle ground is just that. You can be as religious as you want, tell me that I live in sin etc., but you don't get to force me to not be with the person I love. Similarly, I don't get to force legislation to make everyone atheist.

[xupybd]

I think you miss the point. I am trying to get a discussion on where we draw the line on how we assert our political beliefs in everyday life.

For instance there has been talk here on the freedom of association. I support that to a degree. But not to the degree where I would want society to allow a shop keeper to only serve straight white males. But I would want a society that allows a church/temple/(name your religious building) to discriminate on not marrying people from outside of that faith.

This article got me thinking why have I drawn these lines. And wanted to open a discussion on how we decide when is it okay to limit someone's freedoms. I think the majority are saying lets try to prevent this guys ability to work for this company. Because he wants to limit who can marry who. But why is one okay and not the other? I'm not trying to take either side I'm just trying to ask why.

[stbtrax]

I draw the line at if you can make a logical argument, there are many logical arguments for not eating meat. There are no convincing logical arguments for opposing gay marriage that don't involve bringing mystical wizardry into play.

[Xcelerate]

Except you can't assume you're right and use that as the basis of an argument against someone who you thinks you're wrong. You'll get nowhere with that. It's the same thing your opponent does too.

It always bothers me when listening to (or reading) a debate and both sides say that the other side isn't being logical. Well, you can't both be logical and still be in contradiction with each other.

[vezzy-fnord]

There's actually other reasons one could support Prop 8 without necessarily being anti-LGBT. This includes an opposition to all marriage in general, or a desire to keep the traditionalist definition of "marriage" and have the same rights for non-traditional couples under a different moniker, a perceived triviality of the issue (whether rationally justified or not) and so on.

I do not approve of his actions, but there's plenty of other variants besides "Eich is a despicable homophobe."

Of course, outrage porn is very popular in our interconnected society these days. As for me, I'll keep using Mozilla's products and learn to draw a line between technical accomplishments and political views. Mozilla's contributions to FOSS are far too great to brush them off over something like this.

[bsder]

It's kind of hard to reconcile any of those arguments with support of Prop 8.

Prop 8 very specifically changed the law against a very specific group. It wasn't maintaining status quo; it wasn't removing the state from the issue; it was placing certain people at a disadvantage.

Consequently, while there are some possibly reasonable arguments about gay marriage (getting the state out of marriage altogether being the most compelling), supporters for Prop 8 can't hide behind them.